University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

Councilman Jones Clarifies Constitution

I am writing to clarify certain
misrepresentations of Mr. MacDonald's
editorial on the new student
government constitution.

The constitution to be presented
to the student body this week is
substantially unchanged from the
version passed by last year's Student
Council. The five hundred
petitioners were not forcing a
hastily considered constitution on
the student body; they were merely
demanding a right to have their say
on a document which has been
debated now for almost a year
without any positive action having
been taken by Student Council to
solicit their opinion. In the vote
taken by Council November 21,
to table the constitution, five members
were absent, among them Mr.
Homer, Mr. Moses, and myself,
who have in the past vigorously
supported the new constitution.
The recorded vote of only one
councilman opposed to tabling the
constitution is therefore misleading
when the opinions of absentee
members are not taken into consideration.

Turning now to the innovations
of the new constitution, it is in
my opinion the best improvement
to come along since "girls in the
dorms." Direct election of executive
officers accords the student
body the respect it deserves of
being able to choose responsibly
from among a list of candidates.
The President who is elected under
the present system with the solid
support of the "lame-duck" councilmen
might very well fail to have
the support of the council over
which he is expected to preside.
Placing the responsibility for election
of officers on the student
body can only strengthen these
offices. Having to confront the
student body and campaign for
office a candidate will be forced
to propose a platform of action
that he wants to enact, which is in
sharp contrast to the Council's
past practice of electing a President
wherein candidates made no
statement of views, indicated no
course of action to be followed,
and in fact were not even present
during the discussion of their candidacies.

And then there's the argument
that it will be difficult to fill the
seats of the fifty member legislative
council. Ridiculous! Last
year thirteen candidates vied for
five positions on Council for the
College. In the Graduate Arts
and Sciences race, no less than
five candidates campaigned for one
seat. The trend reveals an increasing
interest gaining a position
on Student Council. When you
consider on top of this that the
age requirement of representatives
will be lowered to include first-year
men, and that the First-Year
Committee and the Alderman
Road Committee together
have over sixty members, it is
not difficult to see that there is
adequate interest among the student
body in student government
to more than staff the new legislative
council.

But wouldn't such a large body
be unwieldy, and inefficient? There
is no iron law which says that the
Council will have to convene as a
whole every week. Look at the
Alderman Road Committee with
its thirty members. They meet en
masse bi-monthly, with committees
meeting during the off-weeks. Such
a schedule for meetings would
greatly improve the efficiency of
student government. Committee
work, which is the heart of the
work of Student Council, could
expand to include more problem
areas with the increased membership
of staff the needed committees.

With respect to apportionment
Mr. MacDonald implied that
Council has actively been wrestling
with devising some scheme of
apportionment for the new Legislative
Council. This matter is to
be resolved in the by-laws. The
constitution committee felt it was
wasted effort to draw up by-laws
for a constitution which might not
even pass. There is more than
enough time to settle on an effective
apportionment system once
the constitution passes, and recent
suggestions indicate that a workable
system has already been proposed.
See Kevin Mannix about
his proposal.

Lastly Mr. MacDonald's effort
to create an independent-fraternity
rift over the issue of Student
Council control over the IFC is
the most reprehensible of his attacks
on the constitution. Council
overwhelmingly rejected Mr.
Brown's suggested amendment
during its discussion in Committee
of the whole. The by-laws of the present constitution exempt the
IFC from Student Council control.
There is no reason to expect
any change in the new bylaws.
But the major argument
against including such exemption
in the constitution itself was that
it would raise the IFC, elected
by a special segment of the student
body, to equal status with the
Honor Committee and Judiciary
Committee, elected by the student
body as a whole.

In conclusion, the new constitution
will revitalize student government,
will make it more responsive
to the student body, will enable it
to broaden its area of services to
the student body, and will
strengthen the students' bargaining
position vis-a-vis the Administration.
For strong, effective, student
government, vote yes on the new
constitution.